God exists because he has to? Who was the god that created god, if everything needs a creator? And which of the religions on offer did you find is the correct one? Assuming you’re Christian, the 10 commandments are a mess. If we’re created in his image, why would most feel that killing EVERYONE is not great? Christians have an easy time recognizing god’s good deeds, but otherwise works “in mysterious ways.” I think it’s adorable that you are so certain you’ve got it right, and convinced yourselves that what you have is evidence of a god. I suggest giving HS science another go.
Your objection also fails for the same reason Richard Dawkins’ objection fails in his book “The God Delusion.” If you are going to object against the Christian conception of God, then at least ensure that your claims are accurate, or else your objection is invalid. The Christian claim is that God exists of His own necessity. If you believe that “God” requires a creator, then your objection is no longer against the Christian (or Islam and Judaism) conception of God.
I would welcome an intelligent argument against a “self-existing” being and the reasons behind your belief that such a being cannot exist. However, objecting on the basis that such a being requires a creator fails to comprehend the fundamental concept of “self-existence.” Anyone who believes in created gods, I would argue, is delusional.
Furthermore, consider the following deductive argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Notice that according to this argument, God as a self-existent being does not meet premise one because God does not begin to exist. Additionally, this argument is one of many arguments, including that presented in this article, that support the existence of such a being. A straw-man argument won’t suffice.
Furthermore, you appear to be certain of your own certainty that Christians are mistaken, and that your assumptions about God are correct. However, it is important to recognize that arguments for the existence of God have been presented that provide justification for the claim that God exists. May I inquire on what basis you justify your own certainty that God does not exist and that Christians are mistaken?
Dr. Parrish asked me to post this reply to your comment:
"Your reply to my article consists of a couple of sentences that are misunderstandings of my argument and the rest things that are irrelevant to the article. I never wrote that everything needs a creator; indeed, I reject that. The argument is that God, as the greatest possible or conceivable being has necessary existence as part of his essence, just as having 6 faces is part of the essence of cube. What does High School science have to do with this? It is completely irrelevant to my argument and this subject. Instead, if you want to have an intelligent discussion you should study modal logic and modal metaphysics. The only alternatives to God as a necessary being are abstract entities and pure possibility, neither of which is remotely plausible. If you really want to understand this, you should read my book God and Necessity, but I strongly suspect that is way beyond your ability to understand. You might try my book Atheism? which is more popularly written, but which I suspect is also beyond your ability. This basic argument was based on my doctoral dissertation. Two of the people on my committee were atheists, including my dissertation advisor, yet they passed it. And yes, I think that the existence of God can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
Thank you for your thoughtful article. Though I have been a Christian for more than 50 years, I still read 'proof of God's existence' articles from the mindset I had as an atheist in the 60s and early 70s. Would such articles have caused me to pause and consider my mindset (worldview) at the time. Your article would have certainly given me pause if I had read it as an atheist. May it cause many atheists to pause and consider their 'mindset,' even as it helps theists better understand how to share the existence of God with those who do not believe.
Thanks for this stimulating article. As a scientist, I am struck by the importance of natural law in your arguments. We tend to forget that the very idea of unbreakable, fixed (and easily formulated by mathematical) laws was a revolutionary concept for most thinkers until the dawn of modern science. Laws of logic were well known, but these were not meant to apply to the physical world of nature (and in fact they generally do not). Newton, Copernicus, Kepler et al. based their confidence on the possibility of finding laws in nature on their belief in a divine law giver. The fact that gravity is a universal force that can be expressed by a simple mathematical formula, makes no sense in a random, chaotic, uncreated universe. This, if nothing else, gives the lie to naturalism, which in fact has no possible answer to the question of why and how do natural laws exist.
While a strong case for the conclusion that the First Cause (let us stipulate antecedent causation, setting aside dimly-glimpsed “quantum” hand waving) must inevitably be the consequence of Infinite and Eternal Will, your argument cannot lead us to the Heavenly Father, the God of divine love and salvation. Therefore it is incomplete with respect to “proving the existence of God”. Knowing our Father as a personal reality must forever remain an exercise of exquisite faith, the greatest privilege in all of human experience.
But I think it does, in a roundabout way, suggest the Primal Differentiation, which is the separation of the domain of energy/matter from that of personal and personally realizable reality. Of course mind is the third universe reality that bridges those two domains.
Which is greater: a personal God or an impersonal God? If you assert a personal God, you are correct. Consequently, the ontological argument offers compelling reasoning for the existence of a personal deity. However, I concur with your assertion that the arguments presented for the Christian conception of God must be considered collectively. The case for the existence of God is an accumulative one. For instance, the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, and the moral argument, when combined with a historical defense of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, provide a robust case for the God depicted in the Christian Bible.
God exists because he has to? Who was the god that created god, if everything needs a creator? And which of the religions on offer did you find is the correct one? Assuming you’re Christian, the 10 commandments are a mess. If we’re created in his image, why would most feel that killing EVERYONE is not great? Christians have an easy time recognizing god’s good deeds, but otherwise works “in mysterious ways.” I think it’s adorable that you are so certain you’ve got it right, and convinced yourselves that what you have is evidence of a god. I suggest giving HS science another go.
Hello Alex,
Your objection also fails for the same reason Richard Dawkins’ objection fails in his book “The God Delusion.” If you are going to object against the Christian conception of God, then at least ensure that your claims are accurate, or else your objection is invalid. The Christian claim is that God exists of His own necessity. If you believe that “God” requires a creator, then your objection is no longer against the Christian (or Islam and Judaism) conception of God.
I would welcome an intelligent argument against a “self-existing” being and the reasons behind your belief that such a being cannot exist. However, objecting on the basis that such a being requires a creator fails to comprehend the fundamental concept of “self-existence.” Anyone who believes in created gods, I would argue, is delusional.
Furthermore, consider the following deductive argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Notice that according to this argument, God as a self-existent being does not meet premise one because God does not begin to exist. Additionally, this argument is one of many arguments, including that presented in this article, that support the existence of such a being. A straw-man argument won’t suffice.
Furthermore, you appear to be certain of your own certainty that Christians are mistaken, and that your assumptions about God are correct. However, it is important to recognize that arguments for the existence of God have been presented that provide justification for the claim that God exists. May I inquire on what basis you justify your own certainty that God does not exist and that Christians are mistaken?
Dr. Parrish asked me to post this reply to your comment:
"Your reply to my article consists of a couple of sentences that are misunderstandings of my argument and the rest things that are irrelevant to the article. I never wrote that everything needs a creator; indeed, I reject that. The argument is that God, as the greatest possible or conceivable being has necessary existence as part of his essence, just as having 6 faces is part of the essence of cube. What does High School science have to do with this? It is completely irrelevant to my argument and this subject. Instead, if you want to have an intelligent discussion you should study modal logic and modal metaphysics. The only alternatives to God as a necessary being are abstract entities and pure possibility, neither of which is remotely plausible. If you really want to understand this, you should read my book God and Necessity, but I strongly suspect that is way beyond your ability to understand. You might try my book Atheism? which is more popularly written, but which I suspect is also beyond your ability. This basic argument was based on my doctoral dissertation. Two of the people on my committee were atheists, including my dissertation advisor, yet they passed it. And yes, I think that the existence of God can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
Thank you for your thoughtful article. Though I have been a Christian for more than 50 years, I still read 'proof of God's existence' articles from the mindset I had as an atheist in the 60s and early 70s. Would such articles have caused me to pause and consider my mindset (worldview) at the time. Your article would have certainly given me pause if I had read it as an atheist. May it cause many atheists to pause and consider their 'mindset,' even as it helps theists better understand how to share the existence of God with those who do not believe.
Thanks for this stimulating article. As a scientist, I am struck by the importance of natural law in your arguments. We tend to forget that the very idea of unbreakable, fixed (and easily formulated by mathematical) laws was a revolutionary concept for most thinkers until the dawn of modern science. Laws of logic were well known, but these were not meant to apply to the physical world of nature (and in fact they generally do not). Newton, Copernicus, Kepler et al. based their confidence on the possibility of finding laws in nature on their belief in a divine law giver. The fact that gravity is a universal force that can be expressed by a simple mathematical formula, makes no sense in a random, chaotic, uncreated universe. This, if nothing else, gives the lie to naturalism, which in fact has no possible answer to the question of why and how do natural laws exist.
Thank you for a very interesting article.
While a strong case for the conclusion that the First Cause (let us stipulate antecedent causation, setting aside dimly-glimpsed “quantum” hand waving) must inevitably be the consequence of Infinite and Eternal Will, your argument cannot lead us to the Heavenly Father, the God of divine love and salvation. Therefore it is incomplete with respect to “proving the existence of God”. Knowing our Father as a personal reality must forever remain an exercise of exquisite faith, the greatest privilege in all of human experience.
But I think it does, in a roundabout way, suggest the Primal Differentiation, which is the separation of the domain of energy/matter from that of personal and personally realizable reality. Of course mind is the third universe reality that bridges those two domains.
Hello Lon,
Which is greater: a personal God or an impersonal God? If you assert a personal God, you are correct. Consequently, the ontological argument offers compelling reasoning for the existence of a personal deity. However, I concur with your assertion that the arguments presented for the Christian conception of God must be considered collectively. The case for the existence of God is an accumulative one. For instance, the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, and the moral argument, when combined with a historical defense of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, provide a robust case for the God depicted in the Christian Bible.